Tuesday, July 21, 2009

The term "spontaneity" can be variously defined, for the phenomenon to which it refers is many sided. Meanwhile it must be stressed that "pure" spontaneity does not exist in history: it would come to the same thing as "pure" mechanicity. In the "most spontaneous" movement it is simply the case that the elements of "conscious leadership" cannot be checked, have left no reliable document. It may be said that spontaneity is therefore characteristic of the "history of the subaltern classes", and indeed of their most marginal and peripheral elements; these have not achieved any consciousness of the class "for itself", and consequently it never occurs to them that their history might have some possible importance, that there might be some value in leaving documentary evidence of it.

For Gramsci the act of writing about struggle by the participants is central to the formation of class consciousness.

This has implications for the role of the revolutionary publication. It means that a publication is not just vital as a propagandist, agitator and organiser (as Lenin describes in What is to be done?) but actually plays a central role in the formation of the class "for itself".

By writing about their day to day struggles workers connect those struggles with a sense of history. What lies behind documenting your struggles is the understanding that in the future others will learn from them, that your struggle is part of an unbroken thread of resistance stretching back in history and reaching forward into the future.

Once workers think about their struggles in this manner they transcend the immediate demands around which the struggle is fought and connect it with the historical mission of the working class to reshape society in its own interests.

A strike over wages ceases simply to be about the immediate economic interests of the workers involved but instead becomes part of a bigger picture - and in doing so ceases to be an act of "spontaneity" but an act of conscious leadership.

The unavoidable consequence of this is the next step - the joining together of those that see the struggle in this conscious manner in an organisation that seeks to shape this struggle via collective leadership - a party. This is the way that the publication acts as a scaffolding around which an revolutionary party is created.

The implications for the revolutionary publication and the network of agents that create it is that their role is to encourage and develop this process of documentation of struggle and by doing so they directly assist in the formation of class consciousness.

The centrality of creating an organ that is not just read by workers but written by them lies in this fact. Any organ that does not develop a network of workers who write about, film or photograph their own struggles as a central part of the project will not succeed as a revolutionary publication.

Therefore the possibilities offered by the new technologies of the web, the ease with which non specialists can publish online affords new possiblities for revolutionaries to develop class consciousness and consequently presents us with the challenge of developing new models that radically break with those of the present. In doing so the online publication will radically reshape the paper publication and the organisation that creates it.

"As it is, the paper is divided among various writers, each of whom is very good, but collectively they do not permit workers to penetrate to the pages of the Appeal. Each of them speaks for the workers (and speaks very well) but nobody will hear the workers. In spite of its literary brilliance, to a certain degree the paper becomes a victim of journalistic routine. You do not hear at all how the workers live, fight, clash with the police or drink whiskey. It is very dangerous for the paper as a revolutionary instrument of the party. The task is not to make a paper through the joint forces of a skilled editorial board but to encourage the workers to speak for themselves. A radical and courageous change is necessary as a condition of success ...

Trotsky, quoted in Tony Cliff - The use of Socialist Worker as an organiser (April 1974)

Monday, July 20, 2009

A shortage of helicopters has been blamed for the deaths of UK troops in Afghanistan. But the real problem is not lack of equipment but lack of support for the war amongst both Afghans and the British public.

Despite their huge number of Chinook helicopters the United States too is suffering an increased casualty rate - about three a day in July. This is approaching some of the highest levels of the Iraq war.

The call for more helicopters also ignores the fact the the two greatest single losses of UK forces lives in Iraq and Afghanistan were in aircraft - the Hercules crash in Iraq in 2005 and the Nimrod crash in Afghanistan in 2006.

"I have said before, we can have effect where we have boots on the ground. I don't mind whether the feet in those boots are British, American or Afghan. But we need more, to have the persistent effect to give the people confidence in us...That is the top line and the bottom line."

Unavoidably more "boots on the ground" means more casualties amongst occupying troops.

The alternative - greater use of air power - means more civilian casualties, more civilian casualties translates into more support for the Afghan resistance which in turn leads to more casualties for occupying troops.

There is however a great deal of genuine discontent in the armed forces over equipment.

Over the last five years there have been a number of high profile cases where poor equipment and training have led to the deaths of British armed forces personnel. An article in the Independent on Sunday in November 2007 revealed that of 254 deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan 88 were due to equipment failure or neglect. But spending an extra £4 billion on helicopters and other equipment will not solve the underlying problem for the British Military.

The major problem faced by the British armed forces in Afghanistan is political in origin.

Political opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has led to a critical and growing shortage of highly skilled specialist personnel.

The war machine needs highly skilled workers to keep it going. They provide the underlying technical basis to the military advantage over the Taliban. A shortage of skilled staff undermines this advantage and levels the field. This erosion of military superiority leads to increased casualty levels.

"Each Service has a number of trades which are substantially undermanned. These trades are classed as pinchpoints and represent serious manning shortfalls in the Armed Forces. The MoD defines pinchpoints as trades or areas of expertise where there is not enough trained strength to perform operational tasks without encroaching on the time provided between deployments for recuperation, training and leave...

We are disappointed to note that between 2004 and 2008, the number of pinchpoint trades have increased across all Services. In the Army pinchpoint trades have increased by 15.4%, in the RAF by 63%, and in the Naval Service by 150% so that there are now 30 pinchpoint trades in the Army, 31 in the RAF and 25 in the Naval Service."

These pinchpoints are caused by a greater outflow of existing members compared to recruits. And because of the nature of the grades involved it is not simply enough to boost the numbers of young recruits. Skilled personnel need to be trained for much longer than combat forces and cannot be deployed until trained.

The result of insufficient personnel in key grades leads to these personnel being deployed more often and for longer - referred to in military jargon as "Exceeding their individual Harmony Guidelines"

"Harmony Guidelines are designed to ensure harmony between competing aspects of Service personnel's lives: operations, time recuperating after operations, personal and professional development, unit formation and time with families."

The National Audit Office report into Recruitment and Retention in the Armed forces indicates that over 40% of Vehicle Mechanics, over 35% Armourers and over 30% of Recovery Mechanics and Accident & Emergeny Nurses exceeded their individual harmony guidelines.

The same report studied the reasons personnel in key pinchpoint grades gave for leaving the service:

70% said it was due to "Inability to plan life outside work"

60% mentioned "Impact of Service life on family life"

Over 40% stated "Pressure from family"

37% said "Too many deployments".

This is a vicious circle. As the numbers leaving due to exceeding their "Harmony Guidelines" grow this increases the pressure on those that remain to exceed their "Harmony Guidelines" and thus increases the likelihood that they too will leave.

"the Harmony Guidelines have been well constructed because the evidence suggests that if you stay within them they [Service personnel] do not suffer; if you go beyond them there is a 20-50 per cent likelihood that they will suffer in terms of PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder]."

It is the determination of the British Government and its military to fight unpopular and unwinnable wars that is responsible for the growing losses in Afghanistan.

It means that the burden of stress suffered by soldiers and their families will increase. It will mean more deaths, more serious injuries, more serious mental health problems, suicides, violence against women and family breakdowns.

The campaign for more equipment currently being waged in the media by the British military is an attempt to divert political opposition to the human cost of war into greater expenditure on war.

It is an attempt to use the widespread sympathy for the plight of the troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan to build support for a policy that requires they continue to fight and die in Afghanistan for many years to come.

The same purpose lies behind the growing number of military parades. There is widespread public anger at the poor treatment of troops and their families and the lack of recognition of the sacrifices that they are making. But the Government and the Military see the parades as a way of building support for the war. They are using recognition of sacrifice as a means to ensure those sacrifices continue to be made.

This will mean greater polarisation within society as those who make war from the safety of Whitehall try to shift the blame for the mounting losses onto those that oppose the war.

It means more direct political intervention by the military into the political and social life of Britain because there can be no continuation of the Afghan war without a massive effort by its supporters to change the current political context to one that favours increased retention and recruitment.